

T^K 


CONTESTED ELECTION CASE—PATTERSON vs. CARMACK. 


SPEECH 


HON. WILLIAM Sf KIRKPATRICK, 





. r 


■A 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


Thursday, April 21 , 1898 , 


1898 . 

.S, 






X 


< 5 ^ 


% 






r 






> 



i 




SPEECH 

OF 

HON. WILLIAM S. KIRKPATRICK. 


Tlie House haviug under consideration the following resolutions; 

“1. Resolved, That E. W. Carmack was not elected a member of the Fifty- 
fifth Congress from the Tenth Congressional district of the State of Tennes¬ 
see, and is not entitled to the seat now held by him. 

“3. Resolved, That Josiah Patterson was elected a member of the Fifty- 
fifth Congress from the Tenth Congressional district of the State of Tennes¬ 
see, and should be awarded the seat now held by contestee 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK said: 

Mr. Speaker; The case that we are about to discuss is one which 
seems to have attracted considerable attention throughout the 
country as well as aroused a great deal of interest on the floor of 
this House. It presents many of the ordinary features of an elec¬ 
tion contest. It has also some exceptional and extraordinary char¬ 
acteristics. Your committee, so far as I have been able to observe 
the temper and disposition of its members, approached the consid¬ 
eration of this case without the slightest prejudice or partiality as 
between the contesting parties. Although the case has not yet 
been heard, and the reports from the majority and minority of 
the committee have been read by perhaps but few, we have already 
had a desperate struggle at the very threshold of its discussion. 
Perhaps a resume of the facts and circumstances leading up to 
this contest may throw some light upon the apparent feeling 
-which permeates the House on this question and has lined us up 
already in the matter of its consideration. 

I need not say on behalf of the committee that this case was 
carefully and fully considered by every member, and a full dis¬ 
cussion of the case upon its essential and controlling features and 
issues was had before the entire committee. I am sure that the 
members of this committee representing the majority have been 
actuated by a purely judicial temper in the discussion and deci¬ 
sion of the issues presented in the present case. I am free to say 
that so far as I am concerned I have not had the slightest interest, 
personal or political, in the fortunes of either of these contesting 
parties. My sole desire has been to determine this case upon its 
merits, without regard to their political opinions or alflliations. 
That is a matter of very little consequence. 

Indeed, so far as the gentleman who appears here as the sitting 
member is concerned, he has abundantly delivered himself both 
-s^’ays upon the great dividing question of the day, and at one time 
or another has expressed every variety of views, so that, judging 
by his utterances, it is hard to say just wdiat he really does believe. 

This case originated practically in 1894. With the intrusion of 
the money question into the ranks and organization of the Demo¬ 
cratic party there arose a fierce controversy and division in that 
party; and the trouble apparently -was as to whether the party 
33G6 3 



4 


should remain moored to its old Jeffersonian and Bentonian prin- j 

ciples or whether it should drift away under the fantastic leader¬ 
ship of the Populistic candidate to whom it intrusted its political \ 

fortunes in the last contest, and who swiftly led it to signal and J 

overwhelming defeat. ! 

This Congressional district is composed of four counties—Shelby, ^ 

Fayette, Tipton, and Hardeman. In 1894 there was a contest in ^ 

the district between two candidates representing the two phases \ 

of Democratic opinion upon the money question, the candidates 
being Mr. Young and Mr. Patterson; and after a struggle at the 
primaries, which was the method then in vogue by which a nomi¬ 
nation was determined in this district, Mr. Patterson was declared 
the regular nominee. At the same time there was a contest for 
the membership of the executive committee of the district. There 
were three Sound-Money Democrats selected and two Free-Silver 
Democrats as members of this committee, A contest was raised 
as to a member from one of the counties. It was settled by the 
returning board before whom the votes at the primaries were can¬ 
vassed in favor of the sound-money committeeman, and the result 
was that the control of the executive committee and of the Demo- : 

cratic organization remained in the hands of the Sound-Money 3 

Democracy of the Tenth Congressional district. \ 

That was in 1894. In 1896 the heat of this contest had become ! 

intensified. Immediately after the famous stampede at Chicago 
this intensity of feeling became still more strong and overwhelm¬ 
ing, and a renewed effort was made for the control of this organ¬ 
ization. The result was that after it had been decided by the 
chairman of the committee that the action of the board in 1894 
had settled this contest the two Free-Silver Democrats on the 
committee withdrew. These two seceding members recognized 
the claims of Dr. Albright, the contestant for the disputed iDlace 
on the committee, whose right to admission to such membership 
had been settled and decided against two years before. And then 
this self-created committee, thus evolved out of this contest, se¬ 
lected t-wo other Silver Democrats and constituted themselves a 
rival organization, claiming to represent and be in control of the 
Democratic party of the Tenth Congressional district. 

Next followed the question as to the nominee. The regular 
committee, in accordance with the traditions and usages of the 
party in the district, announced a primary, which was the proper 
tribunal to determine the claims of the two candidates now con¬ 
testing in this case to regularity of nomination. To this primary 
they should have submitted their case. The self-constituted com¬ 
mittee, to which I have referred, ignoring the primary, called a 
convention, which was a radical departure from the long-estab¬ 
lished custom and practice of the district. By the primaries 
called by the regular organization Mr. Patterson Tvas declared 
the nominee by about 5,000 votes. 

The pseudo committee whose genesis I have described, repre¬ 
senting the free-silver branch of the Democratic party—that 
branch of the party that had gone off after “ false gods” and be¬ 
trayed the ancient faith of the party—called a convention, and by 
this convention Mr. Carmack was nominated. His nomination 
was thus accomplished by revolutionary methods. The regular 
nominee of the Democratic party was Josiah Patterson; and the 
bolting nominee, according to the account I have given of the 
nominations, was Mr. Carmack; and in this way in 1896 two can- 
3306 




5 


didates, each claiming to be the regular candidate of the Demo¬ 
cratic party, presented themselves for the suffrages of the people 
of the Tenth Congressional district of the Stale of Tennessee. 
Of course the question of regularity has no interest for us beyond 
the light it throws upon the present contest. With this family 
quarrel in the Democratic party of the district we have no further 
concern. 

This history, Mr. Speaker, is only significant in view of the 
sequel. Mr. Patterson had the preslige of regularity of nomina¬ 
tion. He represented that element of the Democratic party which, 
in many parts of the district, was very strong. Mr. Carmack, 
who, but a few years before, had been a pronounced sound-money 
man, and with all the wealth of the vocabulary with which he is 
gifted had denounced the heresy which was infusing itself into 
the Democratic party—Mr. Carmack was now practically a bolter, 
and represented that element which sought to drag the party 
away from the traditions handed down to them from generations 
gone by, and which was in direct and extreme antagonism to the 
cardinal financial principle of the Republican party. 

Now, such was the situation at the time of this election. With 
Mr. Patterson representing the sound-money element of the Dem¬ 
ocratic party; with Mr. Patterson as the regular nominee of that 
party; with Mr. Patterson consistently and throughout all his 
political life a bold and earnest defender of the great principle 
which we contend lies at the very foundation of the true financial 
policy of this great Government, his candidacy appealed most 
strongly to the Republican voters of the district. 

There is no wonder that in the final outcome, although there was 
some coquetting on the part of Mr. Carmack and his supporters 
with the Republican organization, some seductive wooing of its 
leaders, it transpired that the Republicans of the Tenth Congres¬ 
sional district, having so often in the past engaged in hopeless con¬ 
tests, with their bitter experience of being regularly counted out, 
as the record discloses in this case, from 1874 down, felt that there 
was no hope of success in nominating their own candidate, but 
that in a coalition with a representative of the principles that 
were then regarded as vital in the great contest on which the 
country was about to enter they would be consistent with them¬ 
selves and with the purposes and doctrines of their party through¬ 
out the country in casting their votes for Mr. Patterson and that 
their duty was to join hands with that nominee of the Democratic 
party who best represented the same sound-money principle—that 
great and dominating issue of the hour. 

Mr. BURKE. Will the gentleman allow a question? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Certainly. 

Mr. BURKE. The gentleman has been referring to the con¬ 
testant as one of the sheet anchors of the gold-standard policy. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Well, I did not use that language. 

Mr. BURKE. Very well. I wish to ask the gentleman if the 
truth does not disclose the fact that the contestant cast his vote 
in the last election for William J. Bryan? [Laughter.] 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I care nothing whatever about that. 
Whatever consideration of party fealty may have influenced him 
if he did so, his attitude upon the money question was open, bold, 
and uncompromising, and he incurred the denunciations and po¬ 
litical enmity of Bryan himself. I am not defending Mr. Patterson 
for his political action in the past. He can do that better for him- 
3366 


6 


self. He has been too long in public life and too consistent in his 
advocacy of the great principle to which I have called attention 
not to make me feel entirely safe to leave the defense of his politi¬ 
cal course to himself, even if that were the matter directly involved 
in this issue. 

Mr. BURKE. I did not ask the gentleman to defend him, but 
simply to state the facts. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. It is not necessary to defend him. He 
has been, in season and out of season, pronounced on this great 
question, and many of you gentlemen here are lined up against 
him without having read the case or caring to know anything 
about it, only because you recognize and fear him as a determined 
enemy of that great folly of “ 16 to 1 ’’—that vague and meaning¬ 
less formula which has so strangely captured your imaginations 
and enticed you away from the old Democratic faith. 

Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Does the gentleman mean to 
say that the contestant has been a consistent advocate of the gold 
standard? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I do. 

Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Does the gentleman not know 
the fact that in 1896 the contestant voted for the free and unlim¬ 
ited coinage of silver at a ratio of 16 to 1? [Laughter and ap¬ 
plause. 1 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I know- 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Does the gentleman know that he can¬ 
vassed Tennessee a short time ago as the Democratic candidate 
for governor on a free-silver platform? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I will not yield any further. I shall be 
glad to answer any questions propounded in the proper spirit. A 
controversy such as these gentlemen seek can serve no useful 
purpose, and I do not desire to be drawn off now from the consid¬ 
eration of the main question at issue. It is enough that Mr. Pat¬ 
terson was recognized by the Republicans as an advocate of sound 
money, and for that reason, having no hope of electing a candi¬ 
date of their own, they indorsed his candidacy and cordially gave 
him their votes as being in harmony with them on the ruling 
question of the hour. 

Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. Then what are you talking 
about it for? [Laughter.] 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I am talking about it because I want to 
show why the Republicans of that district rallied around him 
almost to a man in the hope of a fair count and in the hope of 
electing to Congress a man who would represent Republican 
principles. 

I want to demonstrate that although for obvious reasons he 
must have received, and did receive, the full Republican vote in 
the contested jirecincts, it was counted by a most unscrupulous 
and audacious manipulation of the returns for the contestee. 
Now, I decline to yield to further interruption. 

Mr. WHEELER of Kentucky. I insist that the gentleman con¬ 
fine himself to the case. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I must decline to yield any further, be¬ 
cause it simply results in getting off upon irrelevant points. I 
am discussing the reasons why Mr. Patterson was elected to Con¬ 
gress in the Tenth Congressional district of Tennessee.* It was 
because he had the enthusiastic and cordial support of the Repub¬ 
licans of the Tenth district, and he had it because he was a bold, 
3366 






7 

brave, and able defender of sound money and a sound financial 
policy. 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. Was lie a Republican? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I do not care to answer any further 
questions in that direction, because my time is limited and I de¬ 
sire to address myself to the merits of this case. I propose to 
show you that Mr. Patterson was elected, and what I have said 
to you is an element in the chain of proof to establish the fact 
that he was fairly elected, but was counted out by a most diabol¬ 
ical device. In the course of this campaign the Presidential can¬ 
didate of the Democratic party himself appeared on the scene. 
The demoralized hosts of the Free-Silver Democracy in that old 
Tenth Congressional district were rallied, and notwithstanding 
the fact tliat Mr. Patterson was the regular nominee of the party, 
the necessity of keeping him out of Congress was earnestly urged, 
and the plan was concocted in the course of the campaign by 
those who had control of the election machinery, particularly in 
the heavy colored county of that district, by which be was to be 
counted out. 

^ Now, the record is full of testimony from witnesses on both 
sides. Democrats and Republicans alike, that the course of those 
who manipulated and controlled the electoral machinery in the 
county of Fayette from time to time., in national. State, and local 
elections, had made that county a byword and notorious through¬ 
out the whole State of Tennessee, and perhaps throughout Rie 
entire Union, as a county that was given over to a bold, barefaced 
determination, year in and year out, to carry that county always 
for the Democratic party. 

Mr. VINCENT. Was Mr. Patterson elected in that way when 
he came to Congress? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I do not care to be interrupted except 
for a proper question. I am perfectly willing to submit to a 
proper interruption. Now, the population of Fayette County un¬ 
der the last census was 8,386 whites and 20,492 blacks. The other 
counties, Tipton and Hardeman, w^ere white counties, the major¬ 
ity of the people being white. The county of Shelby, of which 
the principal portion of the population resided in the city of 
Memphis, were pretty nearly equally divided. So the place where 
the best opportunity was presented for the construction and plac¬ 
ing in operation of this machinery was Fayette County, where 
the colored population was so heavy that the w’hites numbered 
but about one-third or a little more of the entire population. 

Mr. CARMACK. What do I understand the gentleman to say 
was the proportion of white and colored population in Fayette 
County? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Eight thousand three hundred and 
eighty-six whites and 20,492 colored. 

Mr. CARMACK. What page of the record does the gentleman 
find that statement upon? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I can not now stop to refer to the page 
of the record. You can find it very easily. It is in the record, and 
I got it from the record. Those are the figures according to the 
last census. 

You will find that after these nominations were made attempts 
were made by the representatives of Mr. Carmack to obtain Re¬ 
publican indorsement, and in the record it appears that as an in¬ 
ducement and basis for the proposed treaty it was suggested that 
336G 


8 


there should be a fair count allowed in Fayette County, and that 
the Republicans would get a fair count for the Republican candi¬ 
dates on the ticket if Mr. Carmack was accepted. 

There was the frank and unblushing virtual admission that the 
Republicans had been systematically counted out and would be 
again unless the proposed arrangement for an indorsement was 
agreed to. 

There was an attempt thus to arrange with the chairman of the 
Republican executive committee of Fayette County, Mr. Latta- 

Mr. CARMACK. Mr. Speaker- 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Penn¬ 
sylvania yield? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Does the gentleman wish to ask me a 
question? 

Mr. CARMACK. That is all. I wish to ask you to what page 
of the record do you refer to sustain that statement? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I will answer your question now, and I 
will beg you not to interrupt me again to ask the page of the 
record, because it simply consumes time, and I am not going to 
make any statements here that are not sustained by the record. _ 

Mr. CARMACK. I will not interrupt the gentleman at all, if 
he objects to it. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I do not object to this question. On 
page 12 you will find a description and account of the attempted 
treaty between the chairman of the Republican committee, Mr. 
Latta, and the friends of Mr. Carmack. 

Mr. CARMACK. On page 12 of the record? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes. 

Mr. CARMACK. I suppose the gentleman refers to the sup¬ 
plemental record. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. That is right. I do not care to yield 
any further, because it simply consumes time to no purpose, and 
you have ample time on your side to answer anything I may say. 

Now, I have called your attention to the condition of things 
that existed after these nominations were made, and the Repub¬ 
lican convention had indorsed Mr. Patterson for very good and 
sufficient reasons, having set their face against the seductions of 
the Carmack people, who made no secret of their anxiety to se¬ 
cure the colored vote and who were eager and ready to bargain 
for it. 

The testimony is that Mr. Patterson was favored by 90 per cent 
of the Republicans of the district. This fact was elicited in an 
examination of Mr. Dutro, a witness called by the friends of Mr. 
Carmack, in this record. There is no question at all but that the 
colored voters on national questions vote almost to a man for the 
Republican party and its nominees. The attempt has been made 
in this record, as well as in the minority report and in the argu¬ 
ment of counsel, to discriminate between the voter voting for Mr. 
Patterson and the colored voter voting the Presidential or na¬ 
tional ticket. By a reference to tables which are collated in the 
record and in the briefs of counsel you will find that in aU the 10 
contested voting precincts in Fayette County the vote for McKin¬ 
ley and Patterson was almost the same, the vote for the McKinley 
electors being 1,316 and for Josiah Patterson being 1,386. 

Another circumstance which throws light upon the present 
controversy is the fact that there was a very warm support of Mr. 
Pattevson by some of the leading Republicans who voted for the 



9 


McKinley electors, and who had been originally opposed to his 
indorsement and had been in favor of nominating a straight-out 
Republican candidate for Congress. You know just as well as I, 
from more or less experience in politics, that the regular nomi¬ 
nees, because of the influence of the organization of the party an€ 
the sympathy produced by the advocacy of the same principles by 
the candidate and by those who make up the following of the 
party, gradually overcome such opposition as may exist at first, 
and by the time the election comes around there are but few who 
remain disposed to wander away from the organization and an¬ 
tagonize the nomination. It appears that there w^as an extraor¬ 
dinary effort to be made in this district to insure the election of 
the contestee. 

It was deemed to be of the utmost importance to defeat Patter¬ 
son. The friends of Carmack were rallied by the Presidential 
candidate himself. He appeared at a public meeting in Memphis 
during the canvass and openly denounced all who did not stand 
by the silver nominee for Congress in the district. What was the 
result? With the machinery of Fayette County in their hands, 
with the sheriff of that county in control of the appointments on 
the election boards, the only county in the district in which the 
election officers had not been appointed prior to election and ad¬ 
vertisement thereof made, they confidently devised and executed 
their nefarious plan. In Tipton, Hardeman, and Shelby counties 
appointments had been made by the county court, as required by 
the law of Tennessee, and the names of the officials who had been 
designated to constitute the election boards were published in the 
various newspapers of the count 3 % 

But in Fayette County the court failed to act. The sheriff, 
J. E. Boswell, was a Carmack supporter. Before election day he 
had been applied to by the friends of Patterson to give them repre¬ 
sentation upon these various election boards. He promised to 
comply with this request. He promised to recognize the law of 
his State, binding upon him and upon his conscience under his 
oath of office; and yet election day came and no appointments had 
been made. But as the testimony abundantly shows, they were 
made up the night before or on the morning of the election and 
sprung upon the people in these various districts without consult¬ 
ing their wishes and even against their earnest protests. They 
were made up in all the contested election precincts, as well as in 
some not contested, of the friends of Mr. Carmack. 

In some cases all of them were free-silver Democrats, and in 
others, an ignorant, half-idiotic negro, who could not read or 
write, was foisted upon the voters of those districts as the so-called 
representative of the Republican or Patterson party, put there for 
the pretended purpose of securing a fair count and free ballot. 
Why, that fact and the additional and si^ificant circumstance 
that though the battle in this case was mainly waged around the 
action of the sheriff, although he was used as the facile instru¬ 
mentality through which this wrong was originated and perpe¬ 
trated, he does not appear as a witness in his own defense; he 
does not appear anywhere in the whole of this record to explain 
his course or to justify his action or to throw the sweet light of 
heaven upon his conduct and reconcile it with fairness, justice, 
and honesty. 

If it was not true that Boswell was in league with the friends of 
the contestee in this case to debauch the ballot boxes of that county 
33G6 


■ >■ 


10 




and to divert its vote from the direction in which it had been ac¬ 
tually cast, why is he not produced? Why does he not show him¬ 
self and defend or explain his action? 

Yon find further along in this case that it is virtually admitted 
by witnesses called on both sides that it has been a time-honored 
custom to count out the negro vote in Fayette County. 

Naturally and fairly the colored voters of this district, upon na¬ 
tional issues at least, are from 90 to 95 per cent in favor of the 
Republican ticket. This was the uncontradicted testimony and 
seems not to be disputed. If they are not intimidated and their 
votes are not stolen and they defrauded of their right of suffrage, 
their vote would invariably be found to have been cast almost 
solidly for the Republican nominee. This is a significant fact 
and, taken in connection with what has been unveiled in the rec¬ 
ord in this case, namely, that the election boards in the various 
precincts were organized on the same plan and wholly in the in¬ 
terest of Carmack, and although the precincts were heavily col¬ 
ored, but a mere handful of the negro vote credited by these Car¬ 
mack officers in the returns to Patterson, makes up a complete 
case of circumstantial evidence, proving conclusively that there 
was an organized and consistent scheme carefully elaborated and 
carried through to steal the Republican vote of that county and 
appropriate it to the contestee, for whom it was never cast. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. Will the gentleman state what was 
the majority returned for the sitting member? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. The majority returned was 365. I will 
show you in a moment how it was obtained. In two of the dis¬ 
tricts in Fayette County, No. 9 and No. 13, the colored voters 
declined to vote at all, because they found the ‘election boards 
organized in such a way that they were utterly powerless to have 
their votes counted. They were wholly discouraged and aban¬ 
doned all effort to thwart the fraud so obviously contemplated. 
Of course your committee could not count those votes, they not 
having even been tendered. But in districts 1, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, or 
in most of them, it fortunately happened, through the courage 
and determination of a few fair-minded men who happened to be 
at the polls at the time the attempt was made to organize them, 
that a measure of fairness and some kind of representation was 
secured for the Patterson following, approximately resulting in a 
sufficiently honest count in these districts. 

Every scheme of conspiracy, every plan of wrong and injustice, 
which is complicated and dependent for its consummation on a 
number of persons in various localities, such as an arrangement of 
this kind must be, is liable to failure in some detail or in one or 
more of the many places involved. It so happened here. Mr. Pat¬ 
terson did secure a fair count in a number of these districts in Fay¬ 
ette County. What does the record show in regard to them? 
They were also largely colored districts, and in every one of them 
whei-e there was a fair opportunity to count the ballots as they 
were cast—in every one of them Mr. Patterson got something more 
than the colored vote. 

That shows that where the colored Republican voters and those 
Democrats who stood by Mr. Patterson were fairly credited the 
natural law that governs the ballot of the colored man in the 
South prevailed, and the result was that Mr. Patterson got in 
these districts, as our tables will show in the report submitted to 
tne House, about or somewhat more than the colored vote of 
3366 


< 




11 


those districts. I call your attention particularly to district No. 1 
and district No. 5, on page 7 of the majority report, where by a 
tabulation of the white and colored vote you will so discover it. 

Now, district No. 1 and district No. 5 join on the southwest and 
west the district known as Yumyum, No. 4, and in this latter 
district, as an illustration, with abundant material in that dis¬ 
trict from which to select an intelligent and educated representa¬ 
tive of Mr. Patterson and of the Kepublicans, they were repre¬ 
sented by a man who signed the election returns with his mark, 
as appears on page 41G of the record, thus disclosing conclusively 
»his illiteracy and utter unfitness to represent the Republicans in 
that district so notorious in times past and by its disgraceful his¬ 
tory justifying the suspicion that was cast upon it by the efforts 
of the voters there to protect themselves against the anticipated 
fraud. And yet, in a district that contained 241 colored voters 
who actually voted, there being some 400 or 500 colored voters 
altogether, including the 241 who cast their votes that day, besides 
a number of white voters who were proven to have cast their votes 
for the contestant, when the poll was counted and the returns 
published, Mr. Patterson received but 10 votes in that precinct, 
and 305 votes were returned for Mr. Carmack. 

Extraordinary result! With a homogeneous colored population, 
with the colored voter naturally voting upon State, Presidential, 
and national issues with the Republican party, with the colored 
vote in districts No. 5 and No. 1 all cast for the Republican can¬ 
didate or the candidate indorsed by the Republican organization 
just over the boundary line, with identically the same kind of peo- 
l)le having the same sympathies, the same feelings, with no ele¬ 
ment disclosed differentiating them in their choice or prejudices 
in this election, we find that recklessly and in the broad light of 
day, probably in the expectation that Bryan would sweep the 
country and therefore Carmack’s seat would be safe, 305 votes are 
counted for Carmack and but 10 paltry votes allowed Patterson. 
Methinks they overdid it, and “vaulting ambition,” or rather the 
desperate purpose to count this district and to get this seat at all 
hazards, “overleaped itself and fell on the other.” 

dt is true that in this district the flimsy defense is attempted to 
be made that the candidate indorsed by the Republicans was un¬ 
popular with the Republican element in that county. Gentlemen 
of the House, it will not do to use that argument, for wherever 
there was a fair count, wherever, as in the case of the fifth dis¬ 
trict, some bold and determined man stood up and saw that 
there was fair representation on the board—wherever there was a 
proper count, Mr. Patterson got virtually the entire Republican 
vote. Wherever the election boards were packed with Carmack 
men, wherever the officer was a Carmack tool, wherever there 
were these circumstances of suspicion, such as the refusal to al¬ 
low the friends of Mr. Patterson in a number of districts to wit¬ 
ness the count, in all those cases there was the outcome of but 
an insignificant, meager vote allowed to him, thus stamping upon 
Hie face of tlie returns themselves, in their variance with all the 
plain probabilities, the black seal of the fraud that was so au¬ 
daciously and wickedly perpetrated in this Congressional district. 

More than that: I have called attention to the proportion of the 
white and colored votes and the fact that under the returns and 
according to the record Mr. Patterson got substantially the entire 
colored vote in the uncontested precincts. In all the districts that 
£366 


12 


ere not contested—where the vote was comparatively fair and 
where there was proper representation on the board—there was a 
partial miscarriage of the comprehensive plan, which was intended 
to embrace the entire county. But, as I have already^ said, the 
scheme, of course, necessarily would prove more or less imperfect 
and disturbed in many of its parts. No machine of human con¬ 
struction that depends upon the personality of the agents and op¬ 
eratives can work perfectly. Fortunately, the scheme was not 
entirely perfect in its working in the present case. 

In these contested precincts. Nos. 2, 3,4, 6. and 8, the two num¬ 
bered 10 and 11, what was the vote? There were 830 white 
voters who voted and 917 colored voters who voted. There were 
a great many voters in this district who were hopeless of a fair 
count and did not go through the empty ceremony of casting 
their votes. They abstained from taking part in what seemed to 
them but a solemn mockery. But take the votes that were i^re- 
sumably cast and counted. There were 830 white and 917 black. 
And yet when you come to count up the votes of Mr. Patterson, 
what do you find? Remember that in all these contested pre¬ 
cincts in Fayette County, where the machinery was so well oiled 
and so effectively operated, Mr. Patterson got altogether but 243 
votes and Mr. Carmack 1,492. 

Why, sir, I need not go a step further in this case. Let it bo 
observed that there was an evident attempt to handle the nomi¬ 
nation of Mr. Carmack so that he could get the indorsement of 
the Republican party. The record is full of the unblushing ad¬ 
missions of the Democratic party, or those acting in its interests, 
that the county had been uniformly stolen from the Republicans 
year in and year out. You have propositions and colloquies be¬ 
tween the leaders of the Republican party and the Democratic 
supporters of Mr. Carmack—discussions of the question of secur¬ 
ing a fair count, suggesting an indorsement of Carmack as a con¬ 
sideration for the allowance of a fair vote, thereby boldly and 
freely intimating that in the absence of such an arrangement, in 
the absence of an indorsement of Mr. Carmack, the old story 
would be repeated, and Fayette County would be counted as of 
old—the legal vote suppressed and one more outrage perpetrated 
upon the freedom and purity of the ballot. 

Such is the aspect of this case, taken in its entirety. Now let 
me refer to the law of Tennessee regulating the matter of the ap¬ 
pointment of these election officers and the conduct of the elec¬ 
tions. These are the statutory provisions: 

The sheriff, and if he is a candidate, the coroner, shall hold all elections. 
(M. and V. Cede, section 1044.) 

The county court shall appoint three judges for each voting place, who 
shall be of different political parties. If the court fail to make the appoint¬ 
ment, the sheriff, with the advice of three justices of the ipeace, or, if none 
be present, three respectable freeholders, shall appoint said judges. (M. and 
V. Code, sections 1047 to 1049.) 

If the sheriff or other officer whose duty it is to attend the particular place 
of voting fail to attend, any justice of the peace present, or if no justice is 
present, any three freeholders, may perform these duties, or in case of neces¬ 
sity may act as officers or inspectors. (M. and V. Code, section 1050.) 

When the election is finished, the returning officers and judges shall, in the 
presence of such of the electors as may choose to attend, open the box and 
read aloud the names of the persons which shall appear in each ballot. (M. 
and V. Code, section 1088.) 

It is said that Mr. Patterson s demand for representation on the 
election boards was an illegal demand; that the law did not pro¬ 
vide that he should be represented on these boards, but that the 
3286 






13 


Republican party should be so represented. Well and good. You 
will find by the record that the effort was to obtain in most cases 
a representation of Republicans on the board. But after all, this 
is a mere quibble; and in the light of what was done in Shelby, 
Tipton, and Hardeman counties, where the county court appointed 
the judges, and Mr. Patterson in most instances was represented on 
these election boards, we need have no difficulty in disposing of 
this suggestion. The true spirit and intent of the law was thus 
carried out without regard to whether such representative was a 
Sound Money Democrat or in all respects a Republican and in full 
line with the Republican party. This action of the court and the 
concession and consent of the supporters of Mr. Carmack and of 
the Republicans alike that this was a proper administration of 
the law settle the question. 

But in this contest, at this belated hour of this story of wrong 
and injustice, we are met with the technical objection that Mr. 
Patterson was not entitled to representation; that the candidate 
to be represented must have been a full-fledged, active Republican, 
in full line and harmony with the Republican party. I do not 
think there is a lawyer on the floor of this House who would at¬ 
tempt to cover up and justify a wrongful count upon any such 
narrow technicality or any such view of the law of Tennessee. 

Then, again, the election laws of Tennessee require that there 
shall be a witness of the count. I have already quoted from these 
statutes and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the citations. We 
may assume that such is the positive law of Tennessee. 

In all of these contested districts, the colored districts, in which, 
except Ho. 2, the colored voters were largely in the majority, as 
shown by the tabulated statement accompanying the report, with 
about 1,000 Republican colored votes cast, with these Republicans 
undoubtedly loyal to the national ticket, McKinley’s electors, Pat¬ 
terson received, according to the count, in the neighborhood of but 
between two and three hundred votes and Carmack, in round num¬ 
bers, 1,500, So if every white vote was counted for Mr. Carmack, 
although not wholly cast for him, because Mr. Patterson re¬ 
ceived (and undoubtedly we are justified in the statement by 
the evidence) not less than 200 white votes in Fayette County 
alone—yet if Mr. Carmack had received all of the white votes, it 
was necessary for him to receive, besides, three-fourths of the 
colored votes in order to make up the 1,500 that were accorded 
to him. 

Why, Mr. Speaker, I need not go any further in my argument 
to justify my vote to seat Mr. Patterson in this contest. But, gen¬ 
tlemen of the House, whatever may be your feelings or prejudices 
in this matter, I have a right to believe that you are conscious of 
the fact that you sit here in a purely judicial capacity. I assume 
you will be honestly and intelligently guided and controlled by 
the testimony in the case. I assume that you will decide the 
question on judicial grounds solely, however you may regard Mr. 
Patterson personally or politically. So that, whatever your feel¬ 
ings may be toward him, you will not fail to realize that you are 
called upon to act as judges of this contest, guided and influenced 
by the testimony alone. Your judgment will be dictated, I am 
anxious to think, by a full, fair, and just consideration of the law 
and the proofs submitted. Whether Mr. Patterson is a dangerous 
antagonist or a useful ally, whether his presence in this House 
may or may not be a standing rebuke to the madness and folly 
3360 


14 




that seized his party and, like a wild mountain torrent, carried it 
far away from those distinctive principles which were so long its 
boast and glory in the past, I dare to hope that the decision of this 
controversy will depend alone upon the evidence as to the honesty 
of the vote cast, and for whom the honest voters of the Tenth 
Congressional district of Tennessee gave their votes in the last 
Congressional election. 

Now let me, for a little while, call your attention to some of the 
details of this conspiracy. I have already quoted the law of Ten¬ 
nessee. I have shown you that the law was deliberately violated 
in a number of instances in the construction and composition of 
these election boards. Now I will call your attention to some of 
the particulars. You will find that in district No. 2, Eola, the 
so-called Republican representative on the election board was an 
ignorant negro who could not read nor vn*ite. He signed his mark 
to the return. 

In No. 3, Fayette Corners, Billy Marbury, an ignorant negro, 
could not read nor write, and made his mark on the returns. At 
No. 4, Yumyum, Harry Thompson, can not write; signed the re¬ 
turns by making his mark. No. 6, Braden, Austin Rogers, could 
not read or write; made his mark to the returns. No. 6, Galloway, 
all the .iudges were white—Carmack men. At No. 8, Oakland, 
Louis Wilson, an ignorant negro, unable to read or write, was 
appointed as the Republican representative. At Canadaville, No. 
9, Mack Harris, an ignorant negro, unable to read or write, and 
made his mark. At No. 10, Piperton, William Wright, a negro, 
unable to read or write, likewise made his mark. At No. 11, Mason, 
Abe Hazelett, an illiterate negro, made his rnark on the returns. 
I might also remind you of the fact that in No. 3 there was a 
refusal to allow any of the electors to witness the count, although 
the request was expressly made of the election officers. This was 
also true of precinct Braden, No. 6, as well as of Mason, No. 11, 
in Tipton County. 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. Whom were they representing, 
those fellows who could not read or write and who made their 
mark? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. The man who could not read or write 
was appointed by the officer who represented Mr. Carmack, or 
through his influence, and he was appointed, I say, because he 
could not read or write, and because he would not be able to de¬ 
tect the perpetration of the meditated fraud. 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. Whom -was he representing? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. I do not know whom he represented. 
He was really intended to represent the friends of Mr. Carmack. 
He was nominally supposed to represent the Republican voters. 
He was put on the board against the protest of Republican voters, 
who were calling for a respectable, educated, and competent man 
who could check the apprehended fraud and protect their inter¬ 
ests. He did in reality represent the Democratic party and was a 
mere tool in their hands. 

Mr. GAINES. He was a Republican, was he not? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. No; apparently not, in many instances. 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. I thought you said he was a col¬ 
ored man; and the colored men are all Republicans, according to 
your claim. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. In the argument, in the briefs, and in 
the minority report the preposterous claim is made that Carmack 
3CC6 



15 


was the choice of the colored voters of these disputed districts, in 
spite of the fact that in the undisputed districts the colored voters, 
almost to a man, cast their ballots for Patterson, 

Mr. HENRY of Mississippi. Did you not say- 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK, I will not be interrupted any further. 
Although the party represented by Mr. Carmack are arrayed 
against the right of the colored voter to vote and have his vote 
counted, although the colored voter is systematically defrauded of 
his vote, although under the pretense of defending and protecting 
themselves against the bugbear of black supremacy, he is hated 
and intimidated and cheated election after election, yet they 
have the audacity in this contest to claim that Mr. Carmarh had 
three-fourths of the colored votes and all the white votes of these 
contested districts. 

I have called your attention to these other two districts in a very 
cursory way. I leave the report of the majority of the committee 
to justify itself. In the statement of the case there is a sufficient 
argument and justification for the treatment which the committee 
gives to those precincts. 

Now, district No. 4 is contiguous to No. 5. I have already al¬ 
luded to that fact. In district No. 5 the normal Republican 
colored vote was 241, as cast, and. all of it was cast for Mr. Pat¬ 
terson and so returned. In district No. 4, with the same kind of 
people and about the same proportion of white and black voters, 
but 10 votes were cast for Mr. Patterson, according to the returns, 
and a number of these, according to the testimony, must have 
been white votes. There is another significant fact about this 
precinct. Anticipating that the vote would be tampered with and 
manipulated, as the event justified, provision was made to take a 
list of the vote while being cast, and the evidence on the record 
itself showed that 61 colored citizens were listed as having actually 
voted for the Republican ticket, and many more besides were 
shown to have so voted. 

Now, I have called your attention to the Fourth district, in 
which but 10 votes were returned for Mr. Patterson and 28 votes 
for the McKinley electors. 

Thirty-seven voters were called and examined as witnesses, one- 
half of the entire 74 subpoenaed; but through the tactics of the 
counsel representing the contestee and their prolonged and ut¬ 
terly irrelevant cross-examination, it was impossible, practically, 
to examine them all. True, there were some days left, but the 
threatened consumption of the narrow limit of time still remain¬ 
ing compelled abandonment of the examination of the rest. But 
there were 37 of them examined, and they all testified, in addition 
to the colored man who was put there to represent the Republican 
party on the board, who voted, according to his own testimony, 
the straight Republican ticket. 

Illiterate as he was, he was able to say that he voted the straight 
Republican ticket, because he said that the straight Republican 
ticket was put in his hands to vote, and he was told to vote it; 
and there was no denial by anybody on the stand that he voted 
the ticket that contained the names of the candidates for the leg¬ 
islature, who were also before the people for their suffrages. The 
37 voters who were called upon the stand, one after another, testi¬ 
fied that they voted the ticket that had the names of J. T. Leake 
and J. O. Randall upon it, as well as Josiah Patterson; and yet, 
in the count which we have in this case, the ofiicial count, there 
3338 




IG 

was not a single vote returned for Mr. Leake and not a single vote 
returned for Mr. Randall. 

Not only do we have the suggestive fact itself that there were 
805 votes reported for Mr. Carmack and but 10 votes for Mr. Pat¬ 
terson, but we have the fact that at least 38 votes were actually 
cast for Mr. Patterson and cast for Mr. Leake and for Mr. Ran¬ 
dall, neither one of the two latter of whom received a single vote 
in the returns. What more do you want? You have a heavy col¬ 
ored district; you have the admitted statement that the negro voter 
votes the regular Republican ticket. You have the fact that he is 
despised, feared, and hated by those who advocate white suprem¬ 
acy in that district, and that he was fully conscious of the hostil¬ 
ity of the Carmack party to his exercise of political rights. You 
have the fact that in the neighboring districts the colored voters 
almost to a man voted for Patterson. 

You have the fact that 37 respectable and intelligent men who 
were able to write and read their ballot swore that they did cast 
their votes for Josiah Patterson, andfor Mr. Leake, and for Mr. Ran¬ 
dall; and yet under the manipulation of the two Carmack sup¬ 
porters on this board, notwithstanding the presence of this autom¬ 
aton, the judge, who was put there ostensibly to represent the 
Republican voters and yet could not read the ballots that were 
counted, you have the fact that out of this mill of fraud and 
chicanery there was ground this return of 305 for Mr. Carmack 
and but 10 votes for Mr. Patterson, and none for Mr. Leake, and 
none for Mr. Randall. 

Do you want the eye of a person who saw the transaction? Do 
you want a living witness? Circumstantial evidence will hang 
a man, and the circumstantial proof in this case is utterly in¬ 
consistent with any other theory than that the election board 
openly, boldly, and infamously, without the fear of God or man 
before their eyes, cheated these Republican voters out of their 
ballots, which the law of the State of Tennessee had put in their 
hands as their weapon and shield. In considering this district 
we discard the official return, and then we take the votes shown 
to have been cast by persons there. Undoubtedly more votes 
were cast for Mr. Patterson, but the limitations of the evidence 
only enable us to count 38, and we have given Mr. Carmack the 
entire vote his testimony tended to prove. Undoubtedly he had 
more, and Mr. Patterson had more, but the votes, to some extent, 
by the very fraud itself and the stress of the proof, are shut out. 
Accordingly we have counted 38 votes for the one and 11 for the 
other. 

Now, let us come to the next precinct, and that is Galloway, 
No. 6. In Braden, No. 6, the fraud was so transparent that coun¬ 
sel on the argument admitted that Patterson was entitled to 13 of 
the votes counted for Carmack, being that many more than the 4 
counted and allowed him. It was admitted that he had received 
these additional votes, which made a difference of 26. Therefore 
it is unnecessary to argue the case of district No. 6, but it operates 
to add cogency and force to the theory that it was a part of the 
omnibus scheme to count this county away from the voters to 
whom it properly belonged and for a man who had not the shadow 
of a right to it under the laws of the State and under a fair count 
of the vote as it was really cast. 

Now, in this district of Galloway we have this set of circum¬ 
stances: We have a man by the name of Braden appointed as 
3336 






17 


sheriff's officer, a Carmack man. What does he do? He goes to 
the poll before 9 o'clock, that being the hour of opening the poll, 
and appoints three judges with the aid of a number of freeholders, 
all of the same politics with himself and carefully selected as 
willing tools to carry out the plan, although the proper persons to 
make those appointments under the law of Tennessee were the 
justices of the peace. One of those justices had gone the night 
before to interview on this very subject another justice who was 
in the interest of Carmack, and who refused and put him off, pre¬ 
tending indifference, and yet the next morning it appears that he 
was in close concert with the Carmack people in organizing this 
poll and in carrying out the general plan to which I have directed 
your attention in the early part of my argument. 

Now, until 11 o’clock, Braden, finding the Republicans were 
prepared, seeing that they had a number of representatives there 
to count the votes and to take the names of the voters as they 
might deposit their tickets and make a memorandum or list of 
them, tried every way possible to prevent proper intelligent Re¬ 
publican representation on the election board. He went off some 
distance and got a poor negro, a half idiot, who could not read or 
write, and who was working in a ditch, by the name of Ed Brown, 
and sought to impose him upon the Republican voters of that dis¬ 
trict, of whom there were 200 or 250 gathered around the polls at 
the time. 

What did he do? He refused to appoint a number of persons 
who were competent and intelligent enough to have properly 
counted the ballots, and insisted on appointing this miserable crea¬ 
ture; and when they refused to accept him and persisted in their 
objection, instead of appointing a competent and proper person, 
he, fully intent upon his purpose, determined to work out the 
scheme in which he was the active agent, appoints another colored 
man by the name of Peyton, who was equally objectionable and 
equally incompetent. Then, at 11 o’clock, although the people 
were clamoring to have the polls opened, although the voters were 
denied the right to cast their votes, at 11 o’clock Squire Griffin, a 
justice of the peace, announced that if Braden would not hold the 
election under the law of the State of Tennessee, he would. 

Braden declared that he would not hold the election. He saw his 
purpose defeated; he saw three or four Stalwart Republicans ready 
to take down the list of the voters who expected to vote an open 
ticket; he saw his play discovered and his plan checkmated. He 
declared, in spite of opposition, that he would not hold any elec¬ 
tion. Not being successful to the full extent of his purposes and 
expectations, he proposed to defeat the popular will altogether by 
denying them an election at all. Then Justice Griffin, upon tliat 
statement, said, as he had the right to do, if Braden would not 
hold an election he would. Braden went out of the room where 
they had contemplated holding the election. The judges whom he 
had appointed also went out and dispersed, and then Griffin 
organized the poll, and the voters began to cast their ballots, 
wnen Braden, finding the people were voting at the other poll, 
changed his mind and announced that he would hold the election. 
Already the voting had commenced at the poll thus organized by 
Griffin; already there had been cast a number of votes, and for 
ten or fifteen minutes that election was in full force. I need not 
take time to point out to you the evidence which incontestably 
proves these facts. 

3366-2 


18 


Upon these facts, what did the committee do? Acting upon 
the case of McDuffie vs. Davidson, decided by the Fiftieth Con¬ 
gress, under a similar state of facts, in a report as to this point, 
sustained by the majority and the minority of that committee, it 
was decided that a poll opened under precisely the same circum¬ 
stances was a legal poll, and was counted upon a unanimous 
recommendation. Both political parties were represented on the 
committee, and the action of Congress sustained the finding of 
that committee. 

Mr. BURKE. Is it not a fact that Mr. Griffin, who attempted 
to open the polls for the second box, and the others with him ulti¬ 
mately went and cast their votes in Mr. Braden’s box? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. No, sir; I think it is stated in the mi¬ 
nority report that the judges, officers of the second poll, cast their 
votes in the first box. I will protect my friend on the other side 
from making what may be an innocent mistake; that is not the 
fact. The record shows that every one of these judges and clerks 
voted in Griffin’s box, and therefore gentlemen ought not to be 
misled by any such assumption as that. 

A Member. Is the gentleman referring to Oakland? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. No; I am referring to Galloway, No. C. 
I have not come to Oakland yet. 

Now, if the House please, so far Mr. Patterson is elected. I 
have here a statement showing that Mr. Carmack on the official 
return had 365 majority. If you throw out the vote of Yumyum, 
No. 4, and count but 38 for Patterson and 11 for Carmack (which 
is doing a great deal better for Carmack than if we actually at¬ 
tempted to count all those votes which were cast), and deducting 
the change of 26 by taking 13 votes at Braden, No. 6, from Car¬ 
mack and transferring them to Patterson, which was consented 
to by the counsel on the argument, you will find that our report 
as to those two districts alone would leave a majority in favor of 
Mr. Carmack of but 17. 

And then when you come to the Galloway case, which I have 
explained, where it can not be doubted that the poll organized at 
this precinct. No. 6—the box I have described to you as having 
been organized by Justice Griffin, was the legal and proper box— 
and if you cast out the other box which Braden attempted to set 
up after the people had already decided to vote at the other place— 
rejecting the 62 votes cast at the Braden box as they should be, 
because not a legal poll, and counting for Mr. Patterson the 247 
votes cast at the legal bbx, there is left a majority in favor of Mr. 
Paterson of 292. 

Gentlemen, I could rest my case here. Although the record 
bristles with wrong and injustice such as I have already depicted; 
although the evidence relating to the other contested precincts 
is equally powerful and convincing as to the fraudulent character 
and conduct of those who were in charge at those places, depend¬ 
ing only upon these three districts about which there can not be 
the slightest doubt, your decision must be in favor of Mr. Patter¬ 
son, because the returns, according to the honest vote and under 
the laws of Tennessee, would give Mr. Patterson 292 majority, or 
nearly the majority that was falsely and fraudulently counted for 
Mr. Carmack. 

Now, I might spend time on the other precincts, but I refrain 
from doing so. I shall have to allow the justification of the ac¬ 
tion of the committee to depend largely upon the report; Taking, 
33G6 






19 


however, the question of the two boxes in the Oaldand district, 
the first box was opened under circumstances almost identically 
similar to those that I have already described in other cases. The 
board packed, the election officers in the interest of Carmack, the 
secrecy and suddenness with which the organization was effected, 
the failure to count all the votes that were positively shown to 
have been cast at the Carmack box, the indications of preparation 
made to count out votes that were cast, the organization of the 
Republicans in order to check the fraud, the declarations that 
Patterson would be counted out—so bold and impudent and au¬ 
dacious in many cases that there seems to have been no secret 
made of it and no consciousness of the moral turpitude involved— 
all reveal the desperate measures of the Carmack leaders and 
justify the deep distrust of Patterson’s friends. 

Alarmed by the declaration of John B. Reed, one of the free¬ 
holders who organized the board at Oakland, No. 8, that they were 
going to count the “darn nigger” out, and that Patterson would 
not get more than 20 votes, although the majority of the voters in 
that district were in fact Republicans and colored people, the sup¬ 
porters of contestant felt that their only and last resort was in 
organizing another polling place, and under legal advice did erect 
a second box. There is some dispute as to the proper polling place. 
I call attention to the evidence to show that the locality was not 
fixed by law. 

Probably the truth of the matter is that the elections were held 
indifferently at either place, and a great deal of lib Brality and loose¬ 
ness in this regard seems to have been permitted as a matter of 
practice in these districts; so that this element need not trouble 
us in deciding this case. Yet, gentlemen of the House, it appears 
that there were 159 votes cast at this second box. No doubt those 
who voted at this latter box thought it was the proper place, and, 
under the authority of the case of McDuffie vs. Turpin, reported 
in Rowell’s Election Cases, page 290, we have counted both boxes. 
This is fair to the voters, as doubtless the votes were cast in both 
boxes in the belief by those who voted there, respectively, that 
they were voting at the proper place. I wish to remind you that 
in this matter of the counting of the votes, in this matter of the 
determination of an election case, the members of this House sit 
here in cases of this kind as a court with high judicial powers and 
prerogatives, a court erected by the Constitution of the Union 
and clothed with exclusive and supreme power; that in passing 
upon a State law, so far as it relates to Congressional elections, 
this court passes upon it as if it were to that extent a Federal law. 

In the absence of a Federal statute such as Congress might 
have passed, the State law, so far as it relates to or regulates the 
election of members of Congress, is to that extent to be regarded 
as a Federal law. In the interpretation of this law the decisions 
of a State court do not bind us unless they are in harmony with 
the principles which have heretofore guided this court and the 
precedents of the House of Representatives itself. Any other doc¬ 
trine would reverse the fundamental principles upon which this 
Government is constructed. Any other doctrine would radically 
impair and ultimately destroy the constitutional power placed in 
the hands of Congress. Just as your State decisions bind when 
in confiict with the decisions of other States, so the decisions of 
this court control it whether they are in harmony or at variance 
with the decisions of Tennessee or any other State. Although no 
33G6 


20 


decisions have been pointed ont, and indeed I believe there are 
none in conflict with the precedent already cited, I wish to em¬ 
phasize this principle, for the right to judge of the elections and 
qualifications of its own members is a high constitutional privi¬ 
lege of this House, and in exercising this power we exercise the 
jurisdiction of a court, we exercise judicial power, and our own 
decisions are the law of this court. It must be observed that 
there is a broad distinction between a positive statute and a 
mere judicial decision. The one is a legislative act, and Con¬ 
gress by its silence or sufferance in the absence of legislation of 
its own enactment has under the Constitution adopted and rec¬ 
ognized such statute as the rule of action governing the matter 
of a Congressional election. The other is the mere decision of a 
court in a given particular litigated case. It binds the parties to 
the litigation and fixes their status as to the litigated matter. 
Beyond that it is but a judicial utterance as to what the law is; it 
is but the evidence of such law, not the exercise of legislative will, 
not the enactment of law. Such decisions are for the guidance of 
such court or of the subordinate courts of the State. So far as 
other States are concerned, or other and superior jurisdictions, 
they control only so far as, by their reasoning, the learning and 
dignity of the tribunal, and by their intrinsic power and ability, 
they convince and satisfy the mind as to the particular rule or 
interpretation thus enunciated. 

And therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the authority of its own de¬ 
cisions, under the law as laid down by Congress itself in a well- 
considered case, and under the principle that a precedent is the 
expression and best evidence of the law for the court that delivers 
it, the action of this committee in this matter of the counting of 
the boxes in the Oakland precinct is abundantly sustained and 
wdll be found to be in entire harmony with the law as thus de¬ 
clared and ascertained. 

Now, I wdll not go into the details with reference to the remain¬ 
ing precincts. It is unnecessary to do so. I shall have to content 
myself ^vith the assistance of those who follow me and with your 
patient and careful reading of the reasons set forth in the rei>ort 
wdiich have guided the majority of your committee. Already in 
the double elections to which I have referred, already in the few 
precincts to which I have invited your more particular attention 
as typical cases, and which were only parts of a general scheme 
and taken almost at random out of a succession of signal frauds 
and most outspoken and unconcealed wrongs perpetrated on the 
ballot box, I find that there is enough to change the result of the 
election in the judgment of any fair-minded man who judicially 
considers the case. 

Mr. WM, ALDEN SMITH. Are there any precincts which 
were not disputed? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. There are those of which I have already 
spoken, in which I have stated the colored race was largely in 
the majority, and in w’hich their votes were cast almost entirely 
for Mr. Patterson. 

Mr. WM. ALDEN SMITH. Is it admitted that Mr, Patterson 
w’as represented on the election boards? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. There is no dispute whatever as to the 
facts. These four or five undisputed precincts seem to have been 
fairly counted, and Mr. Patterson got there substantially the 
3366 


21 


A 


whole colored vote and others besides. In these undisputed pre¬ 
cincts Mr. Patterson was allowed some kind of representation on. 
the boards. This happened through the activity and resolution 
of a number of courageous and determined friends, who con¬ 
founded the well-laid plans of the conspirators and forced the 
observance in some measure of the requirements of the law. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, there is the question of the poll 
tax which has been raised on the part of the minority in their re¬ 
port, in which they refer to a limit of 75 votes cast for Mr. Pat¬ 
terson and the theory is set up that the poll-tax receipts were not 
proper evidence of the voter's right to vote because it is alleged 
the tax was not paid until after the election and that these votes 
were illegal and should not be counted for contestant. The evi¬ 
dence on this subject is unsatisfactory and mostly inferential. 
The votes so cast are unidentified, and the proof fails to disclose 
for whom the votes of persons holding such receipts were actually 
cast. But whether this is so or not, the poll-tax receipts were re¬ 
ceived by the voters themselves in good faith, so far as the evi¬ 
dence discloses. As between the tax collector and the State the 
question of actual nonpayment could not arise, and as between the 
voter and the election official who carried out the law of the State 
by receiving the vote upon the presentation of the receipt the 
matter was adjudicated and the vote was a valid one not open 
to collateral inquiry after the election. 

If he issued the receipts without getting the money until after 
the election, the collector would have been charged with the 
money in a settlement with the State. He was concluded thereby, 
and it was in that case a practical collection of the tax. If the 
voter voted on the tax receipt without a fraudulent purpose or 
fraudulent knowledge, believing the tax had beep paid, it was no 
fault of his if the collector did not actually receive the money, and 
no lawyer in this House will assume that it was, or that the bona 
fide voter should lose his vote by reason of the act of the tax re¬ 
ceiver, He had a right to believe that the tax had been paid, and 
having presented his receipt he complied with the only prerequi¬ 
site in that regard, and he was entitled to his vote. Any other 
view would deprive him of a fair opportunity to perfect his right 
to vote, upon being advised of the real fact. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You do not mean to say that 75 votes were 
cast in that way. You mean 175. 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. No; 75 is the number claimed by the 
minority of the committee. They claim that only that number 
should be deducted, because that many receipts were assumed to 
have been used where the money had not been paid, practically 
abandoning the two or three thousand other votes which were 
claimed by the contestee as having been cast for the contestant 
upon tax receipts paid by third parties. This claim was so clearly 
untenable, under many well-considered legal opinions, that the 
minority ignore it in their findings. They claim, in other words, 
that 75 votes from this source, and only under the circumstances 
I have detailed, should be deducted. Under the conditions of the 
proof and the well-settled principles applicable thereto I feel justi¬ 
fied in appealing to the legal sense of every competent lawj^er on 
the floor of this House that the 75 votes should not be counted for 
Mr. Carmack or against Mr. Patterson. But if the voter received 
the certificate showing the tax wa.s paid, and believed that his tax 
3306 


22 


had been paid, his vote, which was honestly cast, should be hon¬ 
estly counted. It must be counted as it was originally cast; and 
having been adjudicated a proper vote upon the exhibition of the 
statutory evidence, to wit, the genuine tax receipt and its accept¬ 
ance by the election board, it can not now be collaterally attacked. 
There seems to be no way of escaping this conclusion from a 
legal standpoint, even if the allowance of this claim of the con- 
testee would otherwise materially affect the result. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, under the state of the proofs applicable to all 
the contested precincts the action of the committee is amply jus¬ 
tified. Under the findings of the majority and the corrections in 
the returns necessitated by a fair and reasonable view of the tes¬ 
timony furnished there can be no other conclusion than that Pat¬ 
terson received at least a majority of 1,243 votes. With regard 
to the three districts of Yumyum, Braden, and Galloway, in 
one of which contestant’s claim was conceded on the argument, it 
may be said that they present an absolutely clear case for the 
contestant and that the most moderate calculation of the real vote 
in those districts alone would result in a clear majority of 292 
for Patterson. This I think I have abundantly demonstrated. 
Add to this the additional vote of 159 for Patterson in the second 
poll at Oakland, and you have a further majority for contestant 
of 451. This result we reach without any reference to the other 
precincts, where the proofs are equally strong. This is conclusive 
and presents a case abundantly sufficient to reverse the returns 
and give the seat to the representative to whom it honestly be¬ 
longs and send Carmack back to the people of the Tenth Congres¬ 
sional district of Tennessee to vindicate himself, if he can, by an 
honest appeal to the lawful voters in the next campaign. But so 
far as this present contention is concerned it is a closed question. 

I have only to say that this matter the redemption of the 
ballot, of the full and final deliverance or this priceless privilege, 
from the blighting influence of fraud and intimidation in a large 
and powerful section of our Union is one that most deeply and 
vitally concerns that people, much as it concerns and intei’ests us 
all. The long catalogue of contested-election cases which for 
many Congresses have come up from the South, with their volumi¬ 
nous records of outrages and frauds upon the ballot box, have 
afforded ground for the belief that crimes against the suffrage are 
too lightly regarded and their demoralizing results too little appre¬ 
ciated by an otherwise brave, generous, and magnanimous people. 

It is a hopeful sign that the better sentiment of the dominant 
race is arousing itself to a realizing sense of the enormity of these 
wrongs and the dangers they entail to the permanency and purity 
of our free institutions. They are beginning to realize that not only 
are the prestige and honor of a great and heroic people involved, 
but the decay and extinction of public spirit and civic virtue must 
Inevitably follow from the further encouragement of these outrages 
upon this sacred privilege. I have said that this question con¬ 
cerns not only that people among whom these abuses have been 
unfortunately so long tolerated, but also all the free people of this 
great and splendid Kepublic, which now stands guard as the in¬ 
vincible champion of the cause of humanity and the highest 
Christian civilization in this Western world. 

Every Representative who occupies a seat in this House is ac¬ 
countable not only to his conscience and to the constituency who 
3306 


23 


s 


sent him here for a proper consideration and determination of 
these cases, but he is answerable to the whole people of this great 
land, whose Representative he also is, of whose liberties and most 
precious interests he is a chosen and trusted custodian. He is not 
here merely to represent and speak for the special community 
from which he comes, and his duty is not bounded by the narrow 
confines of his own particular district, nor is he a mere instru¬ 
ment to register its will alone. He is here in a larger capacity. 
He is here as one of the servants of the whole country and to legis¬ 
late for the nation at large. 

He is here to share in the responsibilities of this great Govern¬ 
ment, to determine questions of the utmost scope and magnitude, 
questions of peace and war, questions pertaining to eveiy part of 
of our magnificent national domain, questions involving the future 
happiness and destinies of this most favored people on the face of 
the earth. The determination of the right to membership in this 
body is therefore a matter of .the highest privilege and concern. 

The most momentous issues before this House may turn upon 
the narrowest margin. It might easily happen that in the deter¬ 
mination of matters of the highest national moment, matters 
whose decision may change the current of human history, matters 
fraught with the most tremendous consequences to us all, the re¬ 
sult might hang upon a single vote in this House. 

Whether we live in the luxuriant and semitropical South or in 
the colder and sterner regions of the North; whether we dwell on 
the shores of the Atlantic or on the great central iDlains, or upon 
the distant slopes of the Pacific States, we are all alike concerned 
for the honor and good name of the Republic and above all for the 
preservation in all its ancient vigor of the great principle of the 
rule of the majority. We are all interested in the purity, in the 
inviolability of the ballc% wherever or by whomsoever that ballot 
is cast. This is a living, a burning question for us all. You , who 
magnify the power and isolation of the States may elect your 
governor, your own officials in your own way and by methods 
however questionable. 

You may even count out by a iDerversion of the election machin¬ 
ery of your State the man honestly elected to its most exalted 
office and seat him who is not the choice of your people. You 
may, perchance, be content to accept and live under the adminis¬ 
tration of an executive never elected by the honest vote of the 
electors of your State. That is your concern; that is your matter. 
To be sure, one of deepest, of most serious consequence to you, 
but yours must be the odium and the resulting demoralization if 
you permit and condone, and yours the honor and the glory if you 
condemn and forbid it. 

But when it comes to the determinations and decisions of the 
American Congress, I am as deeply interested as you; I am in¬ 
terested for the honor and dignity and glory of my country. I 
am interested that the power and will of the people, which are as 
the breath of life to our republican system, shall have full and 
free expression in this supreme legislature of the nation. 

I am interested as a citizen and a member on tliis floor that in 
the decision of those great questions which affect our dearest in¬ 
terests and shape our destinies the Representative who comes from 
the South or the East or the West and shares in shaping that legis¬ 
lation for you and for me shall come only by the free, uncon- 
33 G6 


24 


trolled, and nncorrupted ballot of the constituency who commis¬ 
sion him; and since the law of the land has given that ballot to the 
humble colored voter as well as to the proud, intellectual, and 
aggressive Anglo-Saxon, since it has placed that ballot in the hand 
of the man whom you may despise and whose i>ossible dominancy 
of numbers you may even fear and shrink from, so long as this is 
the law of the land, so long as he has received that ballot as but 
some partial measure of compensation for the centuries of wrong 
and oppression it has been his hard lot to endure, so long as this 
poor, lowly brother shall carry that talisman in his bosom, I shall 
ever be ready to stand up here in my place and by my act and 
speech and vote declare for a free, pure, untrammeled ballot as 
the hope and salvation of our republican liberty. [Applause on 
the Republican side.] 

8366 


O 




